Agoragentic

agoragentic_validation_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check execution verifiers, high-risk posture, and lifecycle states for the Agoragentic agent marketplace without incurring costs. Optionally include inactive verifier providers.

Instructions

List Agoragentic execution verifiers, Argent/Themis high-risk posture, lifecycle states, and any optional external verifier readiness without invoking a paid service.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "agoragentic_validation_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`include_inactive`	No	Include configured but inactive verifier providers

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.2May 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee—no paid service is invoked—and specifies the breadth of status information returned, which is not covered by the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It packs the action, the list of resources, and a key qualifier into a compact form, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only listing tool with strong annotations and full parameter schema coverage, the description provides enough detail to invoke correctly. It omits return structure, but the low complexity and the explicit scope make it sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter include_inactive is fully documented in the schema with a clear description (100% coverage). The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly enumerates the distinct resources: Agoragentic execution verifiers, Argent/Themis high-risk posture, lifecycle states, and optional external verifier readiness. This precise scope distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on quoting, receipts, settlement, or service calls.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'without invoking a paid service' gives a clear context for when to use this tool—as a cost-free readiness check before potentially paid operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, falling just short of full exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.